April 24, 2008

City Journal's Sol Stern brings us up to date on the post-Weatherman, present-day activities of Bill Ayers. (Ayers has attracted attention because he's an acquaintance of Barack Obama's.) Ayers is a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and Stern charcterizes his department as "a hotbed for the radical education professoriate."

As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers’s current work and his widespread influence in the education schools. In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated. Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms....

The next time Obama—the candidate who purports to be our next “education president”—discusses education on the campaign trail, it would be nice to hear what he thinks of his Hyde Park neighbor’s vision for turning the nation’s schools into left-wing indoctrination centers. Indeed, it’s an appropriate question for all the presidential candidates.

If there's anything to this issue, wouldn't you expect Hillary Clinton to pick up on it? She's long made children and education her special domain.

Power Line notes the City Journal piece and provides the interesting info that Bill Ayers has a blog. Now, I don't like the blog because it's not bloggy. It looks like a dumping ground for occasional press releases. The topmost post is a reprint of a letter he wrote to the NYT back in 2001. I guess it's timely again, not that he bothers to explain its timeliness. But I'm going to read it anyway. The letter is a response to an article based on an interview with him. ("No Regrets for a Love of Explosives," published on the least propitious day for such a reminiscence: September 11, 2001.) Here's how he defends himself:

[Dinitia Smith] and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war....

Some readers apparently responded to her piece, published on the same day as the vicious terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, by associating my book with them. This is absurd. My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy.... My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results form it....

Perhaps precisely because we have suffered [on 9/11] we can embrace the suffering of others and gather the necessary wisdom to resist the impulse to lash out randomly.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those, either.

So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

So are you worked up about the Obama-Ayers connection? I'm not. I'm interested in the education issues that Stern writes about. Maybe that is a terrible problem. It just doesn't have anything to do with Obama (though it might be interesting, as Stern notes, to hear what Obama thinks on the subject of the use of public schools to indoctrinate children).

Obama said in his book Audacity of Hope that the liberal point of view makes more sense to him from a reasonable and logical standpoint (or something like that). Contrast this with Obama trying to pretend he is not a "liberal."

Therefore, I am sure Obama would support the work of Mr. Ayres, and I am sure he would say so as long as he knew there were no tv cameras available.

Obama says he is for change. Yet he is not for changing the formula used to run the horrible public school system (especially in urban areas). He wants to continue the status quo of schools run by corrupt government unions. This is why Obama is not a "post partisan" figure. Obama only wants to change to liberal ideas.

I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.

E.g. by plotting to blow people up, murder them, etc.

My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy....

Mmm, irony.

Re: using K-12 education to indoctrinate students in revolutionary ideology -- considering that our modern educational system regularly fails to teach students to read at grade level, and leaves many graduates incapable of basic maths, I don't think we need to worry all that much about this indoctrination. When public schools learn (relearn?) how to educate students -- then, I could see an issue, maybe. But now? Not so much. What students learn today, at least in public school (I am a public school boy myself, in the American sense), they learn largely in spite of the school setting, rather than because of it. Not exclusively, mind. But largely. Teachers are not the most important source of intellectual and moral leadership for most young people in America today. Regrettable though that might be.

I figured that Hillary, who grew up during the most radicalized period of our post-WW II history, must have had her own unsavory radical associations.

But in fact, she maintained her Goldwater Girl persona throughout her college days, becoming president of the Wellesley Young Republicans her freshman year, working for the House Republican caucus and Jerry Ford, and finally attending the Republican National Convention in Miami, seemingly impervious to the assassinations of RFK and MLK, and the explosion of pentup rage that followed, and impassive regarding the Vietnam war whose draft her agemates protested and tried to evade.

What fascinates me is, through all those turbulent times, how did Hillary remain in her Republicocoon?

In my experience with elementary school teachers, they are generally a little overworked trying to get their kids reading (K-2) or up to the many standards that NCLB imposes. Do they have time to indoctrinate?

I do think a teacher needs to be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit (eesh, what eduspeak gobbledygook) of his or her students simply because it will affect how they learn and it should therefore influence the teaching style.

But in fact, she maintained her Goldwater Girl persona throughout her college days, becoming president of the Wellesley Young Republicans her freshman year, working for the House Republican caucus and Jerry Ford, and finally attending the Republican National Convention in Miami, seemingly impervious to the assassinations of RFK and MLK, and the explosion of pentup rage that followed, and impassive regarding the Vietnam war whose draft her agemates protested and tried to evade.

What fascinates me is, through all those turbulent times, how did Hillary remain in her Republicocoon?

I think this NYT article probably sheds some light on the question. If that long string of random letters and numbers turns out to be generated on the fly, and the link doesn't work, I'm trying to link to an article by Mark Leibovich from September 5, 2007.

It's rather tame compared to some of the things that have been said of Mr. Ayers. And his views on K-12 teaching are, to say the least, not shocking, but rather typical of what has been coming out of most of the educationist* establishment over the last 30 years or so. In short, Ayers is tiresome and a bore, not unlike the unreconstructed Marxist still trying to peddle copies of Workers World on the streetcorner.

(I say this as one who might have been at a certain dance at Fort Dix in the late 1960's when technical problems prevented the explosion of a bomb there. I have reasons to be somewhat disgusted with this worm.)

*Richard Mitchell was all over the "educationists" years before anyone else figured out what frauds these people were and K-12 financial drain they created.

Two days ago you could go, as I did, to the Wood Fund website (woodsfund.org). It's been taken down, but is still cached.

Look who's on the board!!

Not only the evil terrorist Ayers, but executives from UBS Investment Bank, BP Products North America, the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the mining company Sahara Enterprises.

What is BP thinking? On June 17, 1974 the Weather Underground bombed the Pittsburgh offices of Gulf Oil. What is Sahara thinking? On September 11, 1974, it bombed the offices of Anaconda Corp. What is UBS thinking? On June 16, 1975, it bombed the Banco de Ponce in New York.

Go to Ayers blog....look up his April 20, 2006, entry in which he revels in the memory of setting bombs. He is a diabolical fiend, a remorseless sociopath. He is evil.

Remember that Obama's most senior adviser said just last week that the Senator is "friendly" with Ayers.

Friendly??!! With someone whose gang set 24 bombs in courthouses, police stations, a HEW office and public parks? And, Professor Althouse, it even bombed a professor's office.

Ayers wife? Bernadette Dohrn—she praised the Manson murders. She thought it was cool that his fiends stuck a fork in one of their victims. And Obama's been to her home? Taken money from her? Eaten with her?

President Obama will get rid of the No Child Left Behind program and install the Ayers Manifesto. Some current professors of higher learning will have to go to reeducation camps. You know, to learn the new way.

Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, and of course a Marxist revolutionary. He's likely connected as an accessory to cop killers.

He (along with his wife) continues today to work for the violent overthrow of the US government and our society.

Ann, how about a post on Ms Dohrn, the Law Professor who was found unfit for a Law License by her state. She continues to preach revolution and hate for our system as well. Do you think a convicted felon, who can't pass the Bar's moral standard, should be a tenured Professor and mentor for law students?

But Ann, you were very sensitive at that libertarian conference when you demanded that they do more to demonstrate that they were not racists. A demand, I add, made of people who were only part of a intellectual movement, none of whom had even expressed racist views. You were insistent that MORE was required of them, not just that they not say those things but that the prove to you they aren't racists.

Why are you not concerned about Obama's personal relationships? If they aren't indicative of a world view that he shares, should he not do more to distance himself from them? Shouldn't he prove that he doesn't believe the terrorist activities of Ayers or the racist liberation theology of his pastor are not shared sympathies?

Remember you denounced McCain for appearing with the anti-Catholic John Hagee.

I guess I am less concerned with his "friendship" with Mr. Ayers then I am about his inability to foresee the danger of this relationship nor have a good explanation for it. The Coburn comparison is extraordinarily weak.

That he would know someone like that does not change the way I view him.

BTW, how do you become a "Distinguished Professor"? Hang around a long time?

Obama's radical chic stance is going to affect him in the national election.

He sems astonishingly unaware of how this association looks to the average joe.

Only the true believers and boomers still in academia will fail to cringe each time this is brought up. It cannot be swept under the rug. It is of the same psychological import as Kerry falsely testifying before congress.

Rather than complain about its seeming "unimportance", Democrats who support Obama should pressure him to throw Ayers under the bus.

It was so easy with grandma, who raised him. What's so hard about shaking off Ayers, whom he claims to barely know?

BTW, Obama's inability to remember Ayers recalls a similar event in the Hiss-Chambers episode.

It would be interesting to see how many of the education majors are still teaching 5 or 10 years after graduation. The University of Chicago is an elite school isn't it? So I guess most of its graduates soon leave teaching for more financially rewarding jobs.

Therefore, I am happy to say, in spite of Mr. Ayers' best efforts, he fails at having a substantive impact on the teaching world.

Accept that Obama is bullsh*itting you about his relationship with Ayers and you are consuming what Obama is dishing out -- a quick google search will establish the dishonesty of Obama's debate remarks.

Accept that Obama is bullsh*itting you about his relationship with Ayers and you are consuming what Obama is dishing out -- a quick google search will establish the dishonesty of Obama's debate remarks.

The blog post that Ann highlights in the original post here sounds rational, like the reflections of someone with deeply-held convictions. It's possible to read that and think that Ayers is steadfast and to be commended -- if you didn't know that Ayers had actually planned and helped excecute bombings himself. Throw in that inconvenient fact and his statements become absurd. He's a hypocrite.

Ann refers to PowerLine's post on Ayers' education philosophy (such as it is), but misses their much more significant (to me) Friends of Obama series, which contain recent audio clips of Ayers and Dohrn and reveal them to be, as others here have noted, unrepentant and anti-American.

In several articles/comments about the Ayers issue, some people have confused the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois Chicago. NOT the same thing at all. Ayers lives in Hyde Park, but he doesn't teach at the University of Chicago.

I had never heard about Ayers's influence in the field of education. But I guess I'm not surprised. I've met a few highly intelligent and dedicated K-12 teachers. I've met a lot more who seem to swallow whatever PC banalities and idiotic political poses they're fed.

The fact that the right wing is focusing like a laser on a few controversial people who Obama has had dealings with (among the presumable thousands of people he has worked with in his life) is not surprising. It's not swift-boating, it's this little thing called McCarthyism. In fact, it fits the strict definition of McCarthyism, which was was accusing people of being Communists or Communist sympathizers (or commie-terrorist sympathizers), especially via guilt by association. The New Yorker, that commie rag, makes the argument better than I can.

I know this Ayers stuff will bother right-wingers who would never vote for Obama in the first place, or any Democrat. But I doubt it will make much of a dent to the average voter, given McCain's stated desire to prolong the occupation of Iraq.

My simple statement to Hindraker and the gang at powerline, Karl Rove, and the bubbling smear machine of the Republican party: "At long last, have you no decency, sirs?"

For a law professor, this examination of Ayers is too incomplete to be taken seriously. Ann, you really should look more into this before dismissing it out of hand. He is clearly a marxist terrorist that has unrepentantly murdered Americans and wishes he could have done even more for his cause.

What part of this profile is acceptable? Are you suggesting that we should all murder other people to advance our political views? Are you saying that Obama's association with him, combined with his own and especially his wife's statements is acceptable for any person, let alone a politician and god forbid our President?

Come on. No one supporting Obama who has learned of this can possibly support him with a clear conscience unless they agree that the United States of America is evil and that murder for political advancement is acceptable.

Althouse, you were somewhat critical of one of Obama's last comparisons (to his grandmother in the race speech). I'm curious to know what you think about his Coburn comparison. It seems a little unfair if Ayers himself helped construct bombs or obstruct justice in some way for the period he was in hiding (which it seems he did). I'm generally a fan of Obama, but sometimes he chooses to make odd rhetorical comparisons. He must have been able to choose another example in each instance (maybe less so during the debate, but still).

My simple statement to Hindraker and the gang at powerline, Karl Rove, and the bubbling smear machine of the Republican party: "At long last, have you no decency, sirs?"

There is a pale, and Ayers placed himself on the wrong side of it years ago, by his violence and his barbarity. He has not made any public show of repentance that would justify accepting him back into polite society.

You see, one of my friends is Mark Rudd. Mark was one of the founders of the Weathermen and worked with Bill Ayers.

I knew Mark in the 1990's. He was a professor of Mathematics at Albuquerque T-VI (now Central New Mexico Community College), as was I. We were not only colleagues but we became friends. I learned while I was there about his past (not only with the Weathermen but as the leader of the Columbia University student demonstrations.) That was irrelevant to me, because he was still my friend. I tend to keep my friends, whether I agree with them or not (it may interest you to know that I've also had a friend who was a member of the John Birch society.)

I also 'agitated' with Mark. While we were there we were both members of an organizing committee (of about twenty employees) who worked tirelessly for several years to unionize the college (and I might add that we were successful in that end.) I had no problem at all working with Mark on union issues.

It's been ten years since I've seen Mark (we've both moved on from there) but I know he's presently involved with helping provide direction to students who decided to organize the new SDS (he was once the secretary of the old SDS) and if I see him again, he will still be my friend.

I don't judge my friends by their past, and for that matter I don't only have friends who agree with me about everything.

The fact that the right wing is focusing like a laser on a few controversial people who Obama has had dealings with (among the presumable thousands of people he has worked with in his life) is not surprising. It's not swift-boating, it's this little thing called McCarthyism.

So, back to my point, if the Repub candidate were hanging with Murrah Bulding and/or abortion clinic bombers, would you call pointing that out "McCarthyism"? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking there's an embarrassingly myopic double standard here. The fact is, Obama is being outed for what he is. Deal with it.

Yes, Ayers is paid by the same state he once tried to overthrow -- a state that pays him so well he can afford to live with the rest of the professoriat in Hyde Park. His wife's commute is further, but NULS is conveniently located near Water Tower Place and the Magnificent Mile.

The point of mentioning Coburn wasn't to draw a comparison between Coburn and Ayers! It was to point out that as a working, living, social person, you are not responsible for the views and actions of every person you come in contact with or work with!

Obama's views (from his writings, statements, speeches) are in the public record. They do not suggest any kind of sympathy for the weathermen or for radical action! HE IS A LIBERAL REFORMER, NOT A RADICAL TERRORIST.

If you can't see that the Ayers blather is just part of the effort to craft an oppo narrative-- i.e., George Bush is dumb, Al Gore is a liar, John Kerry is a weasel... etc. etc.-- the narrative here being "Osama Obama the Black Muslim Terrorist"-- then you are truly not in command of rational faculties. Ayers has ZERO to do with Obama. It is not a moral issue. It is politics.

So, back to my point, if the Repub candidate were hanging with Murrah Bulding and/or abortion clinic bombers, would you call pointing that out "McCarthyism"? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking there's an embarrassingly myopic double standard here. The fact is, Obama is being outed for what he is. Deal with it.

It's not "what he is," any more than, say, a Republican who praises Strom Thurmond's presidential candidacy is actually a segregationist in disguise. The taint here is nothing more than that he's willing to extend legitimacy to people and movements that deserve none. If you're a private citizen, as I expect most of us are, there's no real concern in that. No one looks to the average joe for leadership on these issue, for a sense of what is and is not okay. But a senator or a President is different, because of he holds public office, because of the symbolic significance of his office.

He has not made any public show of repentance that would justify accepting him back into polite society.

I think you miss the point -- it is McCarthyist for Obama to be tarred with the same brush that tars Ayers. That's what the New Yorker article is claiming. It's not claiming that Ayers should be welcomed back into polite society.

What would the NYT be saying, much less Prof. Althouse and the Ayers apologists here, if a Republican were on a board with an abortion-clinic bomber who, only through prosecutorial screwup, never was jailed? One who still rails against abortion and wished he'd done more in his younger days?

Only if by 'McCarthyism' you mean that long-ignored truth that ther were in fact communists and communist spies in the highest levels of government, and that many Hollywood moviemakers were in fact communists or fellow travellers.

If you mean instead 'falsely accused', then you are wrong.

And Eli, you have a strange concept of pasts that are no big deal to you. Would you befriend an active Nazi? Would you befriend an active serial rapist? A cannibal? Is there no one you would exclude from being friends because of their past?

I beg to differ. A priest I knew raped little boys. He is no longer my friend. A friend of mine destroyed several careers of other friends in his pursuit of power. He is no longer my friend. A friend of mine cheated on his wife and left her after 25 years of marriage. Our relationship is rather strained; it may recover, but it diminished my trust in him.

I don't know how you could maintain a friendship with a man who was a terrorist and wants to start all over again in his little SDS project, and I find your explanation discomforting.

Although for some, this may just be a McCarthy-like smear, for many it is an attempt to get a "real" picture (as opposed to the press release that his campaign is) of the man. He has so few achievements, and such a scant record, and voted "present" so many times, it's hard to get a grasp of the true man behind his meaningless slogans (we are the change we've been waiting for - Oh woweeee).

So, there are hints to be gained (maybe) when you see where he went to church for so many years, and his close relationship with that white hating, America hating, bigot, his terrorist - what? - acquaintances, his wife's statement that she has never before been proud of America, his [wrong] stereotype of why Americans believe in God or value their right to own firearms.

All of these things give you some sense of who he is and what his character is. Other than that, there's really nothing to distinguish him form HRC.

I don't see the Ayers connection being much of a problem for Team Obama. Ayers and his lovely spouse supported Obama in his first run for office; Obama and Ayers served on some foundation board together (but neither was responsible for appointing the other to the board); and Ayers et ux have undoubtedly supported Obama ever since. Unless there is something to show that Obama appointed or was pushing Ayers for some position, I don't see much there that can or should hurt him. It's quite different from his problem with Rev. Wright -- where there clearly was a long, close and mentoring kind of connection that will be much harder for Team Obama to dismiss. I think the only real significance of the Ayers story is that it quickly segues into the Rev. Wright issue -- it's an echo that reminds everyone of the main theme. Because it has that effect, I suspect that partisans opposed to Team Obama will keep bringing it up, but that the Clinton and McCain campaigns will largely stay away from it. As they should.

In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.

I think you miss the point -- it is McCarthyist for Obama to be tarred with the same brush that tars Ayers.

I agree, inferring the Obama is anti-American, anti-capitalist, and supports domestic terrorism because he is friends with Ayers and has been a member of Rev. Wright's congregation for 20 years would be wrong.

However, we choose our friends, and what does it say about Obama that he chooses to associate with these people, and that he refuses to repudiate their heinous statements and actions? He didn't condemn Ayers actions or statements, he just said "all that happened a long time ago," -- except that Ayers has stuck to his guns (so to speak) and is saying the same stuff now as he said back then. Same with Rev. Wright -- it's not a question of cherry-picking to get the right sound-bites.

I would never support Obama in any case because he's too liberal. But how can a presidential candidate successfully explain away his relationships with such high-profile anti-American agitators?

downtownlad: Ayers looks white in his mugshot. Are you sure he's black?

He has not made any public show of repentance that would justify accepting him back into polite society.

However true this is, Ayers has been welcomed back into polite society -- that is the cause of Obama's problem. The state of Illinois hired him, promoted him, gave him tenure, and honored him. The state of Illinois lets him educate young men and women to educate our children. Similarly, Northwestern's Law School pays Dohrn to train future lawyers. They are persona grata. If they were still pumping gas and selling soft drinks, Obama would have never met them.

That word has been bandied about in reference to all sorts of controversial ideologies and lifestyles for years and years in order to scare people into believing their safe little lives are about to be upended.

Has it happened for any of you yet? Has your world come crashing down on top of you? Didn't think so.

Indocrinated.

That this country is still run by the same band of politicans and corporations for the past 40 years indicates that even if someone is attempting to "indoctrinate" a child into an alternative worldview...it ain't workin.

And only 1/3 of American students even graduate high school anyways. The other 2/3 are lulled into the kind of lives that would, ironically, make them believe they have something to fear from Ayers because they aren't educated enough to know the difference between acute problems and mindless scare tactics. Or, maybe the other 2/3 are simply dead, in jail, on drugs, working at Wal-Mart, or watching American Idol.

People who befriend unrepentant terrorists and have 20 year close associations with nutjob racist preachers deserved to be judged accordingly. It isn't McCarthyism to point this stuff out.

Ayers and his group declared war on the United States and carried out bombings. They are enemies of the Constitution. Someone who thinks this isn't a big deal has no business being POTUS.

Eli,

That you would continue a friendship with someone who declared war on this nation, conspired to kill civilians and soldiers in a guerilla war, planned and conducted armed robberies to fund their terrorist gang, killing guards and policemen while carrying it out, thus leaving behind their widows and children show you to be an amoral monster.

However true this is, Ayers has been welcomed back into polite society -- that is the cause of Obama's problem. The state of Illinois hired him, promoted him, gave him tenure, and honored him. The state of Illinois lets him educate young men and women to educate our children. Similarly, Northwestern's Law School pays Dohrn to train future lawyers. They are persona grata. If they were still pumping gas and selling soft drinks, Obama would have never met them.

Yeah, that's basically the problem Obama faces -- he's coming out of a milieu in which they are established people in society, more established than he is (or was, rather, back in 1995 or so).

It's easier for Republicans because almost everyone who matters sneers (in varying degrees) at the kind of people they're obliged to repudiate for decency's (or democracy's) sake -- abortion clinic bombers, segregationists, Dominionists etc. They still screw up (e.g. Trent Lott), but it's hard to be caught unawares. (Although I think Huckabee might have been, at least on the Dominionist front.)

In contrast, there are pockets of Democratic-leaning communities where people who would be reviled elsewhere are the grand old men of Society, and you go up and metaphorically kiss their rings when you make your debut. As Obama apparently had to. And it's easy to be surprised that people respected in your home community are viewed as monsters by those outside.

Wright blames white America for AIDS in the African. His charch preaches black separatism and rejection of middleclassness as "white", thus, he's a bigot and a racist. Maybe your one of those guys who thinks blacks can't be racist? Or are you merely an apologist for racists when they are black?

Charles Manson didn't kill anybody either. Like Ayers, he just declared war on the USA and ordered the killings. Wow that changes everything. Not.

"Sgt Ted, you and your ilk are frauds peddling false outrage to smear a good man and keep Republicans in power."

I'm not Sgt Ted but I'm one of his ilk. And I say, let's bring out the Swiftboats.

Kerry:"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."

Dukakis: "I am a strong liberal Democrat. I am a card-carrying member of ACLU."

What about Hillary Clinton's associations over the past thirty five or forty years? How come we do not hear about them; or if we do, it is a one day blurb. What about her husbands associates? Why is Hillary continually given a free ride by the media?

Yea, yea, I know, Hillary keeps saying- "OK, let's move on and talk about the real issues affecting America." I guess the media is just that gullible.

"According to a 1982 New York Times report, Broadway Baby was implicated in an investigation of a series of violent armed robberies in New York—netting more than $2 million over a two-year span—committed by former Black Panthers and Weather Underground members in the early '80s.

At Broadway Baby, customers often paid by check and used driver's licenses for identification. On Dec. 28, 1979, information from two customer files was used to apply for two driver's licenses at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The fraudulent licenses were used to rent getaway cars for the gang.

Investigators tracked the identities on two licenses for the getaway cars. The names belonged to women who had shopped at Broadway Baby in December 1979. But they weren't robbers.

And who was the manager of Broadway Baby during that period of the customer ID theft?

Dohrn, the future wife of Ayers, identified by investigators as taking customer information from one, and possibly both, of the women shoppers. Dohrn was never charged in that case.

Dohrn and Ayers had been running for some 11 years, fleeing federal charges that they instigated riots in Chicago in 1969.

They finally came in out of the cold in 1980, but the New York gang continued its spree, ending in the bloody 1981 robbery in Rockland County that left a Brinks security guard and two police officers dead.

The federal charges from the riots were finally dropped because the FBI used illegal wiretaps. But the local charge of aggravated assault stuck to Dohrn. She pleaded guilty to two counts, receiving a $1,500 fine and no jail time

In 1982, Dohrn was brought before a federal grand jury investigating radical conspiracies linked to the New York robberies. She refused to cooperate or to provide a signature sought by FBI handwriting analysts. Dohrn was held in contempt of the grand jury and imprisoned for seven months."

Racism comprises several elements, of which only a few can be held by Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

1. The races are different; different characteristics can be ascribed to each race's members.2. My race is superior. In fact, my race is the standard; all others fall short of my race.3. I prejudge others based on their race.4. I oppress others because of their race; this oppression is excused because they are clearly inferior.5. I hate and fear members of other races.

Okay, so nobody answered my question about what "reflection of capitalist hegemony" means.

I even Google'd it, for cryin' out loud, and all I came up with was Ayers' statement, although I came up with many thousands of hits that containted "capitalist," "hegemony" and "reflection" separately.

Whether you like it or not, people WILL be judged by the company they keep. Did your mother never tell you this? People who are running for the highest elected office in the United States: even more so.

HYPOTHETICALLY: What do you think people would think about becoming my clients if it were to come out that I was bestest buddies with known embezzlers and money laundering scam artist? Or that I had hung out with drug dealing biker gangs in my past? Unfair....maybe, but a rational decision on the part of those who would decline to do business with me.

Again, I have not yet seen Rev. Wright's "racist" statements because they don't exist. Maybe you disagree with Rev. Wright's criticism of American society, but there is not one single instance of Wright implying the inferiority of the white race, which is what racism is. NOT ONE. I'm afraid anyone who claims Wright is a racist is a despicable liar.

WTF? While the graduation rates in 17 US cities has dropped below 50%, nationwide, "about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out annually."

Here is the same story from MSNBC, if you'd rather not sully your browser with FoxNews. I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but obviously, some people can.

For me, it's not so much that Obama crossed paths frequently with Ayers and Dohrn - I don't see how one could be an up-and-coming Democrat in Chicago and not have that happen.

What ultimately bothered me was his explanation about why it shouldn't be a big deal:

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

I read that as since he was 8 years old at the time, he doesn't really have any moral obligation to judge the person or the acts that person committed. It just seems to be such a "me-centric" view: Since *I* was too young to have moral culpability at the time of the event, *I* don't have to take any sort of moral stand about it now. Ick.

Something else bugged me about the "I was 8 years old" line and it took me a couple days to figure out what it was. Back in 1963 (when Obama was only 2), Condoleezza Rice was 8 when another group of people, unhappy with the direction the country was taking, thought a similar form of direct action was acceptable.

Come on Barack, have a nice sit down with Condi and explain how being eight years old absolves one from making harsh judgements about domestic terrorists.

What about Hillary Clinton's associations over the past thirty five or forty years?

This is a pretty good question. I don't recall Ira Magaziner being an issue in the 1992 election, but in retrospect he certainly should have been. Even when a candidate's associates don't end up joining the administration themselves, they're our best guide to the sort of people who will.

Ya I guess I come from some damn place that must be foreign a to liberals it's called the military community.

Admit that you hate us and get on with it.

Obama not being bothered by Ayers and being in his home is guess what?

DISGUSTING.

Take this-

the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO), adopting fake identities, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory".

Take the WHOLE DAMN THING-

OWN IT.

In the media you always see this "blurb" about Ayers.

Ayers-The Weathermen- blew some of themselves up making a bomb.

YOU NEVER HEAR THE INTENT.

That part is conveniently edited out for you.

To blow up soldiers at Fort Dix with so much force that they blew themselves up trying to get so far out on the cusp of destrustion that they blew themsleves up.

THEY PUT NAILS IN THE DAMN THING.

And this is THEIR OWN stated GOAL-

"the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory.

Ghee who does that sound like?

They've got more in common with the 9/11 terrorists.

And that his pathetic excuses come out on 9/11?

Sometimes irony can be justice.

But let's get back to Ayers wanting to blow the hell up of the soldiers at Fort Dix...

Blow them to smithereens...

Let's take this from the LIBERAL perspective....

How are we all COOL witrh that?

'Cause the King Kool Kid Obama is cool with it?

And- again from the Liberal doctrine-

Weren't your premises that you've been selling-

That the soldiers were DRAFTED.

That they were FORCED.

That they were UN/UNDEREDUCATED.

That they were POOR.

That they were MINORITIES.

That they were VICTIMS.

But we're all cool with the guy that wanted to blow these guys up.Guys who wanted to escape all that for a couple of hours at a dance at Fort Dix?

Again, I have not yet seen Rev. Wright's "racist" statements because they don't exist. Maybe you disagree with Rev. Wright's criticism of American society, but there is not one single instance of Wright implying the inferiority of the white race, which is what racism is. NOT ONE. I'm afraid anyone who claims Wright is a racist is a despicable liar.

Maybe you need to use a dictionary to look up the definition of "racist". Here let me help you: 1. belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others: racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., specif., such a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or othersAND3.feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race

You might also look up "prejudice". Not knowing Rev Wright personally all I have to go by are the sermons that he and his church were selling to the public. It isn't as if he was hiding anything or was secretly taped. You also might check out the doctrine of his church as it was stated on their very own web site, if it hasn't been erased already.

As Forest Gump would say. "Racism is as racism does." If the Rev is a racist, and I say he is based on the evidence that I have seen and heard, then so be it. But you cannot tell us that we cannot judge him as one or that we can't suspect Barack for his close association with known racists and terrorists.

Montagne Mointaigne said... I'm afraid anyone who claims Wright is a racist is a despicable liar.

2006 Newsletter snippet:

We are on the verge of launching our African-centered Christian school. The dream of that school, which we articulated in 1979, was built on hope. That hope still lives. That school has to have at its core an understanding and assessment of white supremacy as we deconstruct that reality to help our children become all that God created them to be when God made them in God’s own image.

We teach with hope. It is the same hope which would not let Adam Clayton Powell, Denmark Vesey, Alexander Crummel, Harriet Tubman or Septima Clark give up. It is the same hope which motivated Martin King, Rosa Parks, Samuel DeWitt Proctor, Coretta Scott King, Harry Belafonte and Mary Henderson Wright. I look forward with hope.

We lay a foundation, deconstructing the household of white supremacy with tools that are not the master’s tools. We lay that foundation with hope. We deconstruct the vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy with hope. Our hope is not built on faith-based dollars, empty liberal promises or veiled hate-filled preachments of the so-called conservatives. Our hope is built on Him who came in the flesh to set us free.

Sorry. This doesn't pass the smell test. "Garlic noses"? TREMENDOUSLY offensive, I'll grant you that. Is that even a thing??

"vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy": I hate to be patronizing and all, but I really think you must have a mental deficiency if you conflate hatred of the "ideology of white supremacy" with hatred of white people.

Eli Blake said: I don't judge my friends by their past, and for that matter I don't only have friends who agree with me about everything.

Sincere question: If you found at that sweet elderly Professor of Philosophy you struck up a friendship with at ACME University turned out to be a former camp guard at Dachau, would you feel the need to qualify that statement above?

Would you befriend an active Nazi? Would you befriend an active serial rapist? A cannibal? Is there no one you would exclude from being friends because of their past?

There is a tense problem in that series of questions.

When I meet someone new, I generally don't rush home and google them to delve into their past. I will judge them on the current behavior. This might burn me -- it seems to be burning Obama -- but I think it's better to think the best of people.

Please be precise about what I said: "So are you worked up about the Obama-Ayers connection? I'm not." I'm not letting Ayers off the hook for anything. I just don't think there's anything to pin on Obama. It's a data point in a larger picture that might at some point be significant in showing that Obama is an extremist. But I'm not seeing that picture yet. If you want to prove it to me, you are free to try.

But Ann, you were worked up about the John Hagee/John McCain connection. Why get worked up about that one and not the Ayers/Obama connection. The evidence is pretty clear that there is a much more personal relationship between the two than there ever was between Hagee and McCain.

The only possible reason I can think why one would bother you and not the other is that McCain's was a political decision to embrace Hagee. But you haven't even made that point, so I wonder why I need prove anything to you about the connection. You didn't need much proof with McCain and Hagee.

Being in denial doesn't mean others are lieing. Wrights own comments condemn him for the racist bigot that he is.

"We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

“… what’s going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA …”

“Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means they were white, and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country. It just came to me, within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama: He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white, he ain’t rich, and he ain’t privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold."

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Ann: I'm not letting Ayers off the hook for anything. I just don't think there's anything to pin on Obama.

I'm mystified that you don't think Obama's "I was 8 years old at the time" is something we should, at the very least, question.

It's conceivable that Obama had no idea that Ayers is unrepentant; there's really no reason for him to have known that. But how could Obama not condemn the actions of the Weather Underground, and still expect to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate? A pattern has emerged here, and it's showing Obama as unwilling to judge anyone critically. I'd say critical judgment is key requirement for the office of the presidency.

That's pretty much how Obama supporters see it too. I know two liberal Democrats, educated, intelligent who with straight faces said all they heard was criticism from Wright and nothing racist.

The irony that is completely lost on most people though is that for a white-supremacist, people of color-hatin, genocidal nation, Wright and Obama have done pretty well for themselves with their million dollar homes.

Well I take that back, Michele Obama did say how tough it was to afford her daughter's piano and tennis lessons on their meagre salaries.

teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

Absolutely. Stand up for the hope that derives from capitalist investment in businesses and communities. Struggle with entrepreneurs that turn new ideas into life-improving products and services. Rage against the red-tape, bureaucratic incompetence, and flat-out corruption of the regulatory state. DIY.

Support social justice by refusing to excuse the criminal behaviour that destroys the social fabric. Promote liberation by extending free trade to the poor of the world.

So... can we decide the election on policy, not on inferences and associations? Is that too much to ask? To take all the candidates as imperfect but basically decent human beings, and decide who to vote for based on their, ya know, plans for running the country, which are different?

Ayers is still in what he believes to be the social justice movement. Remember what Hillary's girlhood hero said: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

It has been published that Obama held his political debutante fund raiser- his ppolitical coming out party at the home of this mere "English professor". Now that is more than a mild acquaintance and required Obama at least to condemn the man and his actions when questioned during a nationally aired debate! That he did not with such a tie-says something problematical with the candidate.

So... can we decide the election on policy, not on inferences and associations? Is that too much to ask?

Sure. I dislike Obama because all I see coming from his administration based upon his policy positions is more taxes, more spending and fiscal irresponsibility and more government involvement in my life. Ironically, a lot of what the current administration has been like sans increased taxes.

His association with a racist pig and former terrorist who see the nation I love as evil simply reinforces my dislike.

Ann: "It's a data point in a larger picture that might at some point be significant in showing that Obama is an extremist."

I agree that it is an important data point but I don't think the real issue pointed to is whether Obama is an extremist. Rather, the issue is that his choices with respect to Ayers/Dohrn, Wright, Rezko, etc., to many people clearly show a man who does not have the judgment to be president.

Obama made his own choices to lie down with dogs like Ayers/Dohrn and Wright. He could have chosen not to associate with them. His judgment in making those choices and how he chooses to act when called on those choices is highly pertinent to his capability and desirability as president.

Education teaches a child how to think. Indoctrination teaches them what to think. True diversity of classroom material is important but not necessary so long as students are taught to seek knowledge, and to question and consider everything to which they are exposed. True diversity among the teaching staff is critical if one worldview is not to be imposed, no matter how "accidentally" that might occur.

alphaliberal said..."I do not give a rat's ass. So he talked to a guy. "

I he had simply talked to him, I'd agree. But the man hosted parties for him to plan his political career.

One such 'friend" might not be worthy of note, but his other friend is a racist preacher who hates the country. Another such friend is a racist woman who hates her country and he married her. Now this friend is a terrorist who kills people, complains he didn't do enough to show his have for this country and plans his political career for him.

Obama has said nothing to distance himself from this man and there's every indication from his other friends and his spouse that he agrees with the basics of hating the country.

Someone asked what capitalist hegemony means. Hegemony is a term that derives from the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (qv) who argued with Marx that the base determines the superstructure (whoever has the money calls the tune, in arts, in schooling, etc.).

Presumably this would mean that teaching needs to contradict the controlling interests of the wealthy elite, and do consciousness raising about how we need to stick a fork in the rich, and rip out their babies, so as to become the owners of the means of production after the genocide of the wealthy.

Michelle Obama: "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Mr. Marx could not have said it better himself. I wonder where she learned that concept? At school, church, or at dinner with the Ayers?

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

And...it might be nice if just once our self appointed overlords would actually find out if we want these things and if so, what do we want them to look like instead of cramming their version of pie down our throats.

For instance, my vision of a revamped educational system would NOT include unions or tenured teachers and certainly wouldn't include teaching "that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

My vision is that students learn basic skills at the very least and graduate able to be more than the functional illiterates that they are now.

Somehow, I don't think that would jibe with the Obamas and their buddy Ayers.

Funny thing about education... homeschooling was pioneered as much by tofu and nuts hippies as by Christian fundamentalists. Traditional classroom education in our public schools doesn't reflect capitalism or individualism nor does it reflect free-thinking liberalism. Mostly it reflects totalitarian socialism. The worst of both worlds and offensive to people on both ends of the spectrum.

Arguing that schools reflect the capitalist hegemony is utter fantasy but, truth, it's hard to keep a revolution going without something to fight against. The obvious answer is to make something up.

Oh, and minor nit... education doesn't teach people to think. Mostly what teaches people to think and is associated most with critical thinking ability is free time. Directed thought, which is what all education is, doesn't teach people to direct their own thought.

And our schools are certainly about indoctrination. My daughter's charter school (my other kids are still homeschooled) is heavily into environmentalism. It has a list of goals about what sort of a person they will produce... the character education that is so popular... so being smart, straight A's, and knowing a lot isn't as important as learning to have the right attitudes. They also have mandatory volunteerism, 80 hours as a graduation requirement. I don't see any way that mandating volunteer hours teaches students the rewards of volunteering... since they haven't actually done these good deeds of their own free will... but even if it did, how is this an *education* issue? How is it conveying knowledge? It's not.

To answer your question, the Obama-Ayers tie adds weight to the growing opinion that Obama is a far left liberal with very poor judgment when it comes to his associates.

Before this stuff came out, I viewed Obama as an uncontroversial Dem version of Colin Powell . Now I see him as a rudderless young man who landed in Chicago and fell in with just about everyone who was disgruntled and angry at America. Not to mention scuzz like Rezko who probably actually loves America.

What fascinates me is, through all those turbulent times, how did Hillary remain in her Republicocoon?

FLS, in 1968 the Democratic Party was still the party of Vietnam and anti-black racism. Its candidate for the Presidency was the VP of the man responsible for the war, Lyndon Johnson. Meanwhile, southern Democrats were still fighting civil rights tooth and nail. Bull Connor, George Wallace -- these men were Democrats.

Yes, there was a faction within the Democratic Party that wanted to take things in a radically different direction. But they weren't fully in control of the party in 1968. In 1968, strange as it may seem today, a lot of folks who were fed up with war and racial unrest voted for change -- i.e., for the Republican candidate. Keep in mind that with the exception the Eisenhower administration (which people recalled fondly) Democrats had been running every branch of the government for 36 years at that point.

synova said: "...education doesn't teach people to think. Mostly what teaches people to think and is associated most with critical thinking ability is free time."

Clearly and demonstrably false, and speaks to what "education" is today, not what it should be. Do you really believe the average child is learning to think as a result of all those hours spent in front of a TV, or immersed in video games, or playing about on the Internet?

If that were true, the general populace would be much more literate and rational in spite of the current (1960's onward) educational system. Not. Dream on. Find a better theory.

holy cow, there's a lot of fur flyin', here. you guys need to relax, a little. i'm sure there'll be bigger fish to fry somewhere down the road - probably even right now. don't you guys have anything better to do?

If HRC could "remember" the pardons her husband granted two Weathermen, maybe she'd "remember" why her campaign doesn't want to talk about it. Funny how nobody else on the far right (the only ones pushing this story to help HRC) is "remembering" this connection, either.

"Clearly and demonstrably false, and speaks to what "education" is today, not what it should be. Do you really believe the average child is learning to think as a result of all those hours spent in front of a TV, or immersed in video games, or playing about on the Internet?"

Yes.

But if you insist I might go for "boredom" time instead of "free" time.

Do you think that television, games or web surfing *doesn't* involve critical thought processes? How can those things not? Each of them involves information and information must be considered and processed. It must be related to other information and categorized... because that is what we naturally do with information.

Our children *swim* in information.

The only way to avoid learning to think about it is not being given the opportunity to go through the process of identifying relationships but instead being told what those relationships are.

Last month,[Ayers] he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily,and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical statement distributed to prospective voters beforehand, Ayers listed among his scholarly books Fugitive Days, an unapologetic memoir about his ten years in the Weather Underground. The book includes dramatic accounts of how he bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings.

"I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war...."

That must have been why he vacationed in Hanoi. To stop the communist party from killing all those millions of Vietnamese who were unable to find a boat to come over here. Now don't you all feel silly for condemning him?

If HRC could "remember" the pardons her husband granted two Weathermen, maybe she'd "remember" why her campaign doesn't want to talk about it. Funny how nobody else on the far right (the only ones pushing this story to help HRC) is "remembering" this connection, either.

I can't speak for the rest of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but the reason I'm not spending a lot of time talking about Hillary's ties to terrorists and radicals is simple: she's not going to be the nominee this year. Obama is. So Obama's terrorist buddies are more important than Hillary's.

When Hillary runs in 2012, I promise to remind people of her many, many criminal friends and associates.

You can watch Ayers' wife calling for the overthrow of capitalism here in 2007. At 5:00 in the other clip, husband Bill Ayers favorably quotes Mao's henchman Zhou en-Lai.

When Deng Zou Peng toured the US, Time Magazine reported that Shirley MacLaine attended a White House dinner in his honor. She told him how much she admired the Cultural Revolution. She said she'd visited China and met a physics professor at a commune who told her that he enjoyed doing farm work.

Deng's reply: "He lied."

(Of course, Cyrus, you know that Zhou and Mao's student gangs drove intellectuals from the cities. The ones they didn't kill they forced to clean pigsties.

As for Ayers and Dohrn, they're Communist terrorists, not socialists. They'd order your liquidation and mine without a moment's remorse.)

D-Liberal said...If John McCain can't stand up to the North Carolina GOP swift-boat freaks, how can he stand up to al Qaeda?

You seem clueless to the impact of our campaign laws. The Neither the McCain Campaign, nor the RNC (which McCain will soon have defacto control over) created or is funding this ad. The ad targets two NC-D congressional candidates and the ad is funded by the state GOP.

IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR MCCAIN TO CONTROL OR COORDINATE WITH OUTSIDE GROUPS ON JOINT ADVERTSING CAMPAIGNS

What McCain asked but not directed was Dear Chairman Daves,From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.

This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign. We need to run a campaign that is worthy of the people we seek to serve. There is no doubt that we will draw sharp contrasts with the Democrats on fundamental issues critical to the future course of our country.

But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people.

Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement.

Has David Horowitz mentioned Ayer? The Weather Underground was a radical faction of SDS. SDS was a Maoist front group.

I don't know if they actually received money from China but they supported Mao throughout the Cultural Revolution.

In France many of the major heavyweight "thinkers" of the time supported Maoism. Simone de Beauvoir, cornerstone of American feminism, wrote a major book on Mao. Julia Kristeva wrote a book called Chinese Women, which was violently in support of Mao.

Jacques Lacan was a Maoist in the 1970s.

It was part of a general trend of Orientalism that swept the west at that time. It still continues in many of our cultural studies programs.

If there are 6,000 colleges and universities and there are only ten Maoists in each institution, then there are 60,000 educators who are exactly in the mold of Ayers.

But Ayers actually tried to kill people, and that IS a little different.

No, I'm not worked up about the Obama-Ayers connection either, although I do think the truism many of us were taught K-12 applies here: The company one chooses to keep affects one's reputation. Apparently, the Obamas and the Clintons (not to mention Eli Blake) all have connections with shady characters.

I am getting more and more worked up over the Clinton presidency's eleventh hour pardons of two convicted Weather Underground terrorists who murdered two police officers and a guard. I also wonder if their crimes were abetted by Ayers, Dohrn, Rudd, and/or others.

But before I can agree to hire her to be our next chief executive "twofer" president, I want Hillary to talk to her husband about those pardons, find out the truth about them, and then come back here and give us a full accounting.

This is such a ridiculous thing that some of you have to say. Being pleasant and kind to people around you, without judgement, is what Jesus taught. Now if it happens that Obama is very judgemental about right wing nuts and yet very nice to left wing nuts, I guess I could be a bit more worked up. Or if Ayers was currently planting bombs, I would be worked up. But a guy whose sins are forty years back. What the Eff?

It seems that Obama is basically nice to everyone and tries hard not to trash people. Isn't that basically Christ's message as well, you know, the beam in your own eye etc...Seems like a nice trait that some here could pick up since they seem to be missing this sermon at church.

Oh and the Christ thing about being accepting of people where they are; maybe Obama picked that trait up from racist, radical Jerry Wright. Don't forget to watch him on PBS tomorrow! Sure to get some of you real worked up ;-)

As some others have already said, public school has always been about indoctrination. Civics classes taught how to be a good citizen. Our history teach primarily about the historical perspective that leads to our current cultural attitudes. Our literature classes teach a basic set of culturally approved literary leaders.

What Ayers and "revolutionaries" like him are proposing is simply shifting that indoctrination slightly in one direction, as well as highlighting that indoctrination over the supposed basics of education. We are currently not so overt about our indoctrination of our children.

From the few home school situations I've observed, home school is about indoctrination as well. It's just that the parents are in control of all those cultural norms the rest of us delegate to our school districts.

There's nothing shocking or even subversive in what Ayers' educational ideas espouse.

How bad do your crimes have to be so that they are not absolved after a few decades? Of course the answer is jaywalking if you are to the right of Joe Lieberman, and if you are to his left then there was nothing wrong with killing or trying to kill those pigs anyways!

Dorn & Ayers should have been executed, as should all WU members as saboteurs and unlawful combatants. There is no statute of limitations for treason nor for crimes against humanity. Hopefully all those who aided and abetted in the genocide committed by communist parties throughout the years - be they chinese, russian, vietnamese, cambodian, cuban, nicaraguan or whatever - will get their just desserts of a starring role in the spandau ballet.

The crime is that since so many of these criminals exist and infest our power structure that thy will escape. My gadparent's generation was too kind to the nazis and too tired to deal with the soviets, but their major crime was their unwillingness to mete out justice to their children. IT is hard to execute your children, but so many of them deserved it and no amount of time will ever absolve them.

Obama is simply a stalking horse for Maoist revolutionaries. That he could be friendly with Ayers is absolute proof that he is unfit to be president. They are domestic enemies who adhere to any and all foreign powers inimical to the country - but he has no problem being on boards with them and going t their house.

Ask yourself if you would associate with a former terrorist who recently admitted he wished he had blown up more innocents. Of course you're free to associate with him, but you've got no business being near a leadership position.

"What Ayers and "revolutionaries" like him are proposing is simply shifting that indoctrination slightly in one direction, as well as highlighting that indoctrination over the supposed basics of education"

No no no!!! what they are proposing is that a small minority of people subvert behind the backs of the majority and indoctrinate their children with the minorities ideas and radical premises for the purpose of destroying the majority. Using the children as tools and weapons of war.

No one will deny that when we raise a child and teach them right from wrong it is a form of indoctrination or socialization. "Don't pull on the doggies ears" "Hitting your sister isn't nice" "You must poop in the toilet and not on the floor"

HOWEVER, we are doing it as a society or in a community with generally agreed upon ideas of normalcy with the idea that we will all get along as a society.

What he is proposing is to infiltrate and destroy the acceptable basis of society. Destructive, subversive, terroristic and frankly narcissistic. He feels that his views are more important than the rest of society and of the parents of the children that he suggests are just tools to advance his own self important vision. He is the paranioid delusional Uni Bomber of the educational system attempting to bring down society because it doesn't fit "his" ideals.

The fact that Obama is clueless or oblivious or actually complicit in agreeing with this should be incredibly worrying.

Obama did not call Ayers an English teacher because he was confused or misinformed. He called Ayers an English teacher because he was lying. That is, he was intentionally minimizing his relationship with an anti-American revolutionary with whom Obama has been friendly, collaborative and entirely comfortable."

Sure, OJ killed a few people, but that was years ago. He's really just a retired actor with arthritis. Jesus would have lunch with him, sure. (Plus, he even wrote a book that says he didn't do it, but if he did, it would've gone down like this).

So it's all in the past, right?Forgive and forget.Maybe he could teach English with Ayers the new SDSers.

What he is proposing is to infiltrate and destroy the acceptable basis of society. Destructive, subversive, terroristic and frankly narcissistic.

Come on, we've all seen the Manchurian Candidate. We know where the real danger of infiltration and destruction could come from. What if life imitates art, and, just as Richard Condon predicted, the Chicoms programmed McCain's brain while he was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton? Boom: America rolls over to godless Communism.

"From the few home school situations I've observed, home school is about indoctrination as well. It's just that the parents are in control of all those cultural norms the rest of us delegate to our school districts."

"There's nothing shocking or even subversive in what Ayers' educational ideas espouse."

The difference, the very important difference, is that homeschool represents the ultimate diversity of values indoctrination in *aggregate* while what Ayers wants is his ideas to prevail overall through the control of the mass indoctrination processes of mandatory public schooling.

FLS: Are you quite sure that "We know where the real danger of infiltration and destruction could come from"? Ayers and his friends are third-or-fourth-hand dupes of the KGB. Check this video of a former KGB man describing in detail how a nation's philosophical underpinnings are undermined. Ayers, as a teacher of teachers, fits this paradigm exactly. The memes become self-perpetuating, and like mines in an old minefield, are still deadly even when one of the combatants (the USSR, in this case) no longer exists.

If nothing else, when he had dinner at Ayers home, Obama had the opportunity to take a principled stand and, using his strongest oratorial skills, tell Ayers and Dohrn that he was against everything they stood for and abhored their actions and philosophy. Then walked out the door.

At least your standard is clear. However, based on this standard, you undoubtedly will find McCain's association with Hagee far more troubling. After all, McCain sought Hagee's endorsement and has repeatedly indicated that he's pleased to have it.

I read through them last night and was really shocked: they thought they should have planted even more bombs. That was just the beginning.

But Obama can't throw these people under the bus. They are his bus. They are both top profs at Northwestern, one of the top schools in the country, and representative of a whole layer of thinking about America.

Isn't Hagee the one who said he wishes he'd blown more people up? Oh, no wait, that was Ayers.

I'm not here to defend McCain as I can't stand the guy in many ways. But, McCain apologized for Hagee's comments has made it clear that he thinks those comments are nonsense and has categorically rejected Hagee's nonsense.

Obama has not reached McCain's level of dealing forthrightly with despicable key supporters. They all have them (though clearly Hagee is a piker compared to Ayers or Wright), the question is how does the candidate handle them?

I'll provide one answer to my own question of how do the candidates handle supporters who are scum. From Obama's official website we now know what Obama thinks of Ayers and Dohrn:

"AYERS AND DOHRN BECAME RESPECTABLE FIXTURES OF THE MAINSTREAM IN CHICAGO"

Respectable? Mainstream? Long ago in 2007 when Obama was 47'ish Dohrn was still calling for the "overthrow" of the United States. And I suppose those people terrorized and worse, killed, when Obama was 8 just don't matter today do they?

If the Democratic party is a fraction as patriotic as it claims, it will denounce Obama immediately.

Althouse, LYLAS, but if you're going to fault libertarians for their connection to federalism, and consider them to be racists by default (if they don't vociferously enough denounce the history), you have to fault Obama for being unapologetically friendly with this guy. I know it's tired of me to keep going back to that, but can't overlook it in this case...

However I would agree that his current efforts to influence education in the US are undesirable, to say the least.

Sorry, but your summary of the McCain-Hagee relationship is nowhere near accurate. As I stated before, McCain sought Hagee's endorsement. He has in no way since rejected the endorsement he sought. You're playing fast and loose with the facts here.